Three orders of magnitude difference, hundreds of thousands versus hundreds of millions. Somehow Grump supporters think that the bigger the egregious conduct the less important.

Hundreds of imaginary millions, vs. the well-documented millions that were paid to the Clintons just from Russian interests alone.

As if hundreds of millions could have been transferred to Trump from Russian interests without the NSA, SEC and other alphabet agencies finding out. It's kind of staggering how the minds of reasonable fellow Cal grads suddenly turn to mush when processing anything Trump-related.

Hundreds of imaginary millions, vs. the well-documented millions that were paid to the Clintons just from Russian interests alone.

As if hundreds of millions could have been transferred to Trump from Russian interests without the NSA, SEC and other alphabet agencies finding out. It's kind of staggering how the minds of reasonable fellow Cal grads suddenly turn to mush when processing anything Trump-related.

Hillary Clinton is not the president and is not going to be president. Not sure why I should be more worried about her now than about Trump's problems.

Obviously because her charity accepted donation from some bad hombres. And because if you squint hard enough and listen to enough Alex Jones you can convince yourself that she sold Uranium to Putin, who is totally not a bad guy by the way, in fact some people say (untruthfully) that he called Trump a genius. And since we're talking about how smart Trump is, allow me to present Exhibit A, the ranting of a smart man in his own words:

Quote:

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged

Quote:

I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things. … I know what I’m doing and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time I’ll tell you who the people are. But I speak to a lot of people. My primary consultant is myself, and I have, you know, I have a good instinct for this stuff.

"So now he's the president. And it starts off okay. Meets with President Obama and they seem to have a nice conversation. Then he moves into the White House. Right off the bat he's angry at the media for reporting the crowd at his inauguration was smaller than he thought it was which was weird, but not important, really. And he claimed it stopped raining when he was speaking at his inaugural address, which everyone could see it was raining. But okay. It was his first week. You give him a break.So he gets in there, hires his daughter. He hires his son-in-law. Demands an investigation of voter fraud even though he won the election. He calls the prime minister of Australia and hangs up on him. He won't shake Angela Merkel's hand. He doesn't know Frederick Douglass isn't alive. He claims he can't release his tax returns because they're under audit, then says he's not going to release them at all. He signs a ban on Muslims that he claims isn't a ban on Muslims. He compliments the president of the Philippines for murdering drug addicts.Hours after a terror attack in London he starts a fight with their mayor. After criticizing Obama for playing golf he plays golf every weekend. He accidentally shares classified intelligence with the Russians. He tweets a typo at midnight, then wakes up and claims it was a secret message. He praises Jim Comey in October, calls him a coward in June. He fires him. He lashes out at his own attorney general for recusing himself from an investigation.He hires the Mooch, he fires the Mooch. He bans the transgender in the military without telling anyone in the military he's doing it. He plays chicken with Kim Jong Un. And that's just some of the list. If I went through all of it would be longer than the menu at the Cheesecake Factory. It would be huge."-Jimmy Kimmel

Obviously because her charity accepted donation from some bad hombres. And because if you squint hard enough and listen to enough Alex Jones you can convince yourself that she sold Uranium to Putin, who is totally not a bad guy by the way,

You don't have to squint hard, all you have to do is click on this link and read the whole (pay for play) story. NYT link, not Alex Jones. It seems like they were still doing some solid non-partisan reporting not too long ago.

"So now he’s the president. And it starts off okay. Meets with President Obama and they seem to have a nice conversation. Then he moves into the White House. Right off the bat he’s angry at the media for reporting the crowd at his inauguration was smaller than he thought it was — which was weird, but not important, really. And he claimed it stopped raining when he was speaking at his inaugural address, which everyone could see it was raining. But okay. It was his first week. You give him a break.So he gets in there, hires his daughter. He hires his son-in-law. Demands an investigation of voter fraud even though he won the election. He calls the prime minister of Australia and hangs up on him. He won’t shake Angela Merkel’s hand. He doesn’t know Frederick Douglass isn’t alive. He claims he can’t release his tax returns because they’re under audit, then says he’s not going to release them at all. He signs a ban on Muslims that he claims isn’t a ban on Muslims. He compliments the president of the Philippines for murdering drug addicts.Hours after a terror attack in London he starts a fight with their mayor. After criticizing Obama for playing golf he plays golf every weekend. He accidentally shares classified intelligence with the Russians. He tweets a typo at midnight, then wakes up and claims it was a secret message. He praises Jim Comey in October, calls him a coward in June. He fires him. He lashes out at his own attorney general for recusing himself from an investigation.He hires the Mooch, he fires the Mooch. He bans the transgender in the military without telling anyone in the military he’s doing it. He plays chicken with Kim Jong Un. And that’s just some of the list. If I went through all of it would be longer than the menu at the Cheesecake Factory. It would be huge."-Jimmy Kimmel

You don't have to squint hard, all you have to do is click on this link and read the whole (pay for play) story. NYT link, not Alex Jones. It seems like they were still doing some solid non-partisan reporting not too long ago.

Dude, you blew up your credibility completely way before these posts. Why should anyone care what you post now?

Of all the posters on this board, you're easily the most partisan, most petty and least genuinely interested in an open-minded debate. As such, you're not exactly the best arbiter of character on this board.

Of all the posters on this board, you're easily the most partisan, most petty and least genuinely interested in an open-minded debate. As such, you're not exactly the best arbiter of character on this board.

I may be viewed as partisan and some people may not like me but I haven't blown my credibility

You don't have to squint hard, all you have to do is click on this link and read the whole (pay for play) story. NYT link, not Alex Jones. It seems like they were still doing some solid non-partisan reporting not too long ago.

I'm surprised you bothered to link to the nation article as opposed to the earlier article on RT which is more up your alley as a news source. I have no reason to believe that anything the forensicator has alleged would make me rethink what our intelligence agencies have reported. Note I use the "we" in the sense of my fellow americans. Here's just one of many articles pointing out the flaws in the forensicator theory: https://www.roughlyexplained.com/2017/08/does-a-new-study-prove-the-dnc-hack-was-an-inside-job/

I don't really care about that though since this is all just a smokescreen. And it's laughable for you to consider something an open-minded debate. You're idea of an open-minded debate is vomiting thousands of pages of propaganda and demanding a response.

I'm surprised you bothered to link to the nation article as opposed to the earlier article on RT which is more up your alley as a news source. I have no reason to believe that anything the forensicator has alleged would make me rethink what our intelligence agencies have reported. Note I use the "we" in the sense of my fellow americans. Here's just one of many articles pointing out the flaws in the forensicator theory: https://www.roughlyexplained.com/2017/08/does-a-new-study-prove-the-dnc-hack-was-an-inside-job/

So you think that people who haven't bought the "17 intelligence agencies say Russia" must be getting all their news from Russia Today...

Have you, at some stage in your life, also not re-thought what our intelligence agencies have reported on Iraqi WMDs, yellowcake from Niger and mobile weapons labs?

I'm not an IT networking expert, but the explanation provided by the site you've linked (an anti-Russia site run by a neocon) is pretty flimsy. I would guess that the download pattern from a USB is going to be drastically different from that of a remote internet download.

Quote:

it's laughable for you to consider something an open-minded debate. You're idea of an open-minded debate is vomiting thousands of pages of propaganda and demanding a response.

I sense a bit of bitterness here from the climate change debate. Even though it didn't end up well for you there, at least you've managed to keep things fairly civil. Hope that in the future you don't dip any lower than reducing my arguments to "propaganda vomiting".

I'll speak to it. I read the story, and the points raised are interesting. I think the Nation author's tone is more breathless than the "revelations" actually warrant; it's hardly a smoking gun for or against the idea of Russian hacking of the DNC. It's some independent analysts raising questions about inconsistencies in what's been reported. That is all fine.

I'll probably need to see some more corroboration of their work, to see if the claims stand up to further scrutiny. It is at least more substantive than most of the conspiracy-minded "fake news!" claims we see about Russian interference. And of course, if and when US intelligence agencies are required to "show their work" (perhaps in legal proceedings against the president or people on his team) they will have to answer these kinds of questions.

And I suppose Trump's favorite bank paid their $630 million fine for laundering Russian money in NY real estate (hello Donald) with imaginary money. His sons bragged in Public of the hundreds of millions of Russian money they were getting when US Banks stopped lending to the Trumps. It's public record not imagination.

Cal88;842861748 said:

Hundreds of imaginary millions, vs. the well-documented millions that were paid to the Clintons just from Russian interests alone.

As if hundreds of millions could have been transferred to Trump from Russian interests without the NSA, SEC and other alphabet agencies finding out. It's kind of staggering how the minds of reasonable fellow Cal grads suddenly turn to mush when processing anything Trump-related.

And I suppose Trump's favorite bank paid their $630 million fine for laundering Russian money in NY real estate (hello Donald) with imaginary money. His sons bragged in Public of the hundreds of millions of Russian money they were getting when US Banks stopped lending to the Trumps. It's public record not imagination.

It's not the $630 million fine that's imaginary here, it's the link of this fine to Trump. This is the equivalent of linking someone to fraud committed by Wells Fargo because he has a mortgage there. Having a loan from Deutsche Bank, a venerable global financial institution with $1.6 trillion in assets, does not make one an accomplice to their improprieties in Eastern Europe. It's kind of weird that this needs to be spelled out.

You mean like how it needs to be spelled out that Hillary didn't sell uranium to Russia or the fact that someone donates money to the Clinton Foundation (which is a charity) is different from a payment to the Clintons themselves?

Cal88 isn't an IT expert but will assure us this is flimsy fake news. Let's see what RT has to say before we make any hasty judgments.

Here is the list of IT experts and intel vets who have established the the so-called "Russian Hack" was in fact an insider physical download at the DNC data center, not exactly a bunch of Borises and Natashas:

William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center

Last week the respected left-liberal magazine The Nation published an explosive article that details in great depth the findings of a new report authored in large part by former U.S. intelligence officers which claims to present forensic evidence that the Democratic National Committee was not hacked by the Russians in July 2016. Instead, the report alleges, the DNC suffered an insider leak, conducted in the Eastern time zone of the United States by someone with physical access to a DNC computer.

This report also claims there is no apparent evidence that the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 supposedly based in Romania hacked the DNC on behalf of the Russian government. There is also no evidence, the report's authors say, that Guccifer handed documents over to WikiLeaks. Instead, the report says that the evidence and timeline of events suggests that Guccifer may have been conjured up in an attempt to deflect from the embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign that was released just before the Democratic National Convention. The investigators found that some of the "Guccifer" files had been deliberately altered by copying and pasting the text into a "Russianified" word-processing document with Russian-language settings.

If all this is true, these findings would constitute a massive embarrassment for not only the DNC itself but the media, which has breathlessly pushed the Russian hacking narrative for an entire year, almost without question but with little solid evidence to back it up.

You mean like how it needs to be spelled out that Hillary didn't sell uranium to Russia or the fact that someone donates money to the Clinton Foundation (which is a charity) is different from a payment to the Clintons themselves?

Incoming Cal88 propaganda in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Do you consider the NYT "propaganda"? Unfortunately U2S, I didn't make up the facts here:

-SoS Hillary approved a deal where Rosatom, the Russian atomic agency, took over Uranium One, a Canadian uranium mining company that owned 1/5 of US uranium production, while Bill was getting paid $500,000 to deliver a speech in Moscow by a Kremlin-connected investment bank that was part of the Uranium One deal.

-The Clinton Foundation received at least $2.35 million from people connected to the deal during that period, and those donations weren't disclosed.

Have you actually read the NYT article on this murky Russian pay to play episode? Here it is again:

"...the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by...the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton."

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show."

-The Clinton Foundation received at least $2.35 million from people connected to the deal during that period, and those donations weren't disclosed.

Do you know how CFIUS works? You say Hillary approved the deal (by the way, there is no evidence that Hillary was personally involved in any decision), but could she have prevented the deal from happening by withholding the state department's approval? I've worked on quite a number of deals that have gone through CFIUS so I have a decent understanding of the process and I know that only one person can veto a deal. Hint: it's not the secretary of state.

You say the Clinton foundation received money from people connected to the deal. Did Hillary personally receive that money?

By the way, do you think that uranium is a precious resource? From what I've read it's not particularly hard to get and the US only accounts for 2% of worldwide output. Uranium prices have plummeted over the last decade.

So remind me again, even if the things you were alleging were true (which they aren't), why would it be problematic?

Do you know how CFIUS works? You say Hillary approved the deal (by the way, there is no evidence that Hillary was personally involved in any decision), but could she have prevented the deal from happening by withholding the state department's approval? I've worked on quite a number of deals that have gone through CFIUS so I have a decent understanding of the process and I know that only one person can veto a deal. Hint: it's not the secretary of state.

You're asserting the SoS has no influence over deals like the Uranium One being approved. Or that interests funneling nearly $3M into their foundation and/or personal bank accounts are doing it out of the goodness of their heart and concern for Haiti's children (and their parents, whose slave wages Hillary has personally intervened to keep from rising), and that those interests will not receive any special treatment, because Bill and Hillary are upstanding, ethical politicians. I think we'll just have to disagree here...

Quote:

You say the Clinton foundation received money from people connected to the deal. Did Hillary personally receive that money?

Her husband did, a speaking fee of $500,000 (which was well above Bill's average fee), from a Kremlin-connected investment bank that was part of the Uranium One deal. As well, at the very least, the Clinton Foundation covered a lot of their travel expenses and billionaire lifestyle.

There is strong pattern of the Clintons being paid six figures for speeches by groups, corporations and interests who are involved in lobbying, and stand to benefit directly from this financial transaction.

It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.

Unit2Sucks;842862170 said:

By the way, do you think that uranium is a precious resource? From what I've read it's not particularly hard to get and the US only accounts for 2% of worldwide output. Uranium prices have plummeted over the last decade.

Yes of course, uranium is a strategically vital energy and military input. Long term factors are at least as important as short term price fluctuations in purchases of mining rights.

I suggest you need to investigate why Trump and his lawyers do not want Mueller investigating his financing of real estate in NY. Deutsche Bank was the only bank lending him money and it was hundreds of millions and it was money not being invested in Eastern Europe, but in NYC which is why Trump is likely to be vulnerable in New York state criminal proceedings. Trump and family were in need of 'alternative' financing after he stiffed much of Wall Street. He got 'special financing' from 'special sources'. He helped, directly or indirectly, laundering of money from sources subject to US sanctions. His sons admitted to getting money directly from Russians. Not the same thing as my Wells Fargo mortgage; I haven't seen any reports of Wells Fargo laundering Russian money.

Cal88;842862121 said:

It's not the $630 million fine that's imaginary here, it's the link of this fine to Trump. This is the equivalent of linking someone to fraud committed by Wells Fargo because he has a mortgage there. Having a loan from Deutsche Bank, a venerable global financial institution with $1.6 trillion in assets, does not make one an accomplice to their improprieties in Eastern Europe. It's kind of weird that this needs to be spelled out.